AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 



THE OOI^STITUTIOI^AL COI^TEOYEEST 
IN RHODE ISLAND IK" 1841. 



BY 



AETHUR MAY MOWET. 



(From the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1894, pages 361-370.) 



WASHINGTON : 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1896. 




--1 






FEB 3 1903 
D. of D, 




XX.-THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROVERSY IN RHODE ISLAND 

IN 1841.' 



By Arthur May Mowry. 



The general peace aud the customary quiet of the State of 
Ehode Island were rudely disturbed in the spring and summer 
of 1842. The whole population was in a i)anic, and in the 
northern county, especially, the consternation was widespread. 
The struggle was confined within a restricted area and to a 
limited population, and the violence of the contest was very 
great. Son rose against father, brother attacked brother, neigh- 
bor was opposed to neighbor, and the resulting wounds are 
scarcely yet healed. 

The Ehode Island civil war was begun during the first week 
of May, 1842. Then two rival legislatures were organized. 



' The sources for the history of the Rhode Island contest are nearly all 
conscious material, but fortunately both sides of the controversy are 
well represented. The majority and the minority reports of the select 
committee of the House of Representatives appointed tp consider the 
question of the interference of the President, commonly called Burke's 
report and Causiu's report, contain an almost unlimited amount of val- 
uable material. Turner and Burgess's report of the trial of Dorr, pre- 
pared by his supporters, is well offset by Pitman's report, which presents 
the opposite side. The arguments of Messrs. Hallett, Whipple, aud Web- 
ster in the Luther-Borden case present the constitutional questions. 
King's Life of Dorr, Frieze's History of the Suffrage Movement, Potter's 
Considerations on the Rhode Island Question, and Bowen's Recent Con- 
test in Rhode Tglaud furnish very complete presentations of the subject. 
Reports of speeches in Congress and the Rhode Island newspapers have 
been found valuable to supplement the other sources. During the contro- 
versy the newspapers teemed with argumentative discussions, aud a large 
number of these were later issued in pamphlet form. Open letters were 
written to Goveruor Morton, of Massachusetts, to George Bancroft, and 
to others who encouraged Dorr and his supporters. This mass of tracts is 
nearly unlimited, aud most of the older private libraries in New England, 
as well as the public libraries, contain many of these publications. The 
perusal of these pamphlets is extremely monotonous, but in no other way 

can the true inwardness of the contest be obtained. 

361 



362 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

two governors-elect inaugurated, aud dual goverumeuts estab- 
lislied. The State militia was divided iu its allegiance — a 
part upheld Governor Dorr and the constitution, while the 
majority took their orders from Governor King and the char- 
ter government. In each of the five counties of the State 
were rival sheriffs, one-half of whom had broken the laws of 
the State in accepting the office to which they had been elected. 
The President of the United States had been called upon by 
each governor to furnish assistance under the clause of the 
Constitution which guaranteed a republican form of govern- 
ment to every State. 

The general features of the Dorr Rebellion are comparatively 
well known, though many inexact statements occur in the 
accounts that have been published, even by most accurate his- 
torians. The causes of the struggle, the incidents which led 
uj) to the civil war, are not so well known, Avhile the few brief 
accounts of the i)reliminary steps furnish many incorrect 
statements, almost without exception conveying erroneous 
impressions. 

The meagerness of the secondary literature upon the earlier 
movements and the erroneous generalizations that are (piite 
universal have led the writer to an extended study from the 
sources of the history of the suffrage movement in Rhode 
Island. This work has been done in the American History 
Seminary of Harvard University, and this paper aims to set 
forth a necessarily brief account of the circumstances which 
led up to the war. 

Many faults were found Avith the charter and the govern- 
ment which had grown up under it during the century and 
three-quarters of its existence, but at first demands were made 
for only two important changes — an extension of the suffrage 
and an equalization of the representation of the different towns 
in the lower house of the General Assembly. Fitful attempts 
had been made to obtain an improvement in one or the other 
of these matters at several different times, but never was the 
movement iu the hands of real leaders, and never did it 
awaken more than a passing interest among the people. 

The suffrage qualifications were not determined by the char- 
ter, but the right to establish them was placed in the hands of 
the General Assembly. The suffrage, as finally determined by 
the Assembly in 1798, was granted to those who possessed 
a freehold, either of the value of one hundred and thirty-four 



CONTROVERSY IN RHODE ISLAND IN 1841 MOWRY. 3G3 

dollars or wliicli rented for seven dollars per anuura. A relic 
of primogeniture existed in the possession of the suffrage by 
the eldest sons of the freeholders. Most of the male inhabit- 
ants of the colony owned land before the Eevolution, and this 
restriction of the suffrage was not then a serious limitation. 
As the State became more and more a manufacturing com- 
munity, the number of the nonfreeholders materially increased, 
until, by 1840, those of legal age who did not have the suffrage 
were more numerous than the freemen. 

The second evil was, unlike the first, inherent in the charter 
itself, which apportioned the representation in the General 
Assembly, without allowing for changes in the population. In 
the seventeenth century no objection could be made to the 
six members from Newport, the four each from Providence, 
Portsmouth, and Warwick, and the two each from the other 
towns. In 1840, however, the inequalities had become very 
great; for example, Smithfield had a population larger than 
Newport, which was permitted to choose three times as many 
representatives; Providence was nearly twenty times as large 
as Portsmouth, and yet could elect but the same number of 
representatives. The apportionment resembled that of the 
unreforined English borough representation, and possibly the 
great reform of 1832 may have had its influence u])on the 
demand for a change in Ehode Island. 

The first steps were taken during the last weeks of the year 
1840, and were not party movements at all. The Whig vic- 
tories in November may have led the Democratic leaders to 
adopt the agitation for freer suffrage, after it was well in- 
augurated, as a means of regaining the popularity which they 
had lost, but they were surely not prominent in the early 
movements. The Whig features of the log-cabin campaign — 
processions, mass conventions, and frequent assemblages — were 
faithfully copied by the suffragists, and doubtless were effective 
instruments in awakening the people and in moving the au- 
thorities. However, the Rhode Island State Suffrage Asso- 
ciation and the various town sufl'rage societies were at first by 
no means i)arty movements. 

The first sign of the agitation appears to have been an ad- 
dress, perhaps originated m Rhode Island, but ostensibly issued 
by a social reform society of New York, It was addressed to 
the nonfreeholders of Rhode Island, and urged them to hold a 
State convention, frame a constitution, submit it to all the 



364 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

people, and if more votes were given for it than were cast at 
the hist election of national Representatives, proclaim it as the 
"fundamental law of the land." Then they were advised to 
elect Representatives to Congress and thus provide a jury 
which might decide that such constitution had been legally 
adopted. This advice was in many respects very closely 
followed by the suffrage associations. Such societies were 
formed throughout the State before the beginning of 1841, 
and a weekly paper, entitled the New Age, was established 
as the oflflcial suffrage organ. 

In January, 1841, a petition was presented to the General 
Assembly, signed by nearly six hundred persons, asking for 
the formation of a constitution, and for an extension of the 
suffrage, but tbe petitioners declined to recommend any special 
plan. At the same session, Smithfleld asked for an increase 
in the number of Representatives allotted to that town. The 
first i)etition was laid on the table, while the second was dis- 
cussed and a practical answer to both was given by an act 
calling a State convention for November to frame a new con- 
stitution. The vote for the convention was more than 2 to 1, 
and the Whig majority in its favor was greater than the Dem- 
ocratic. Perhaps some of the members of the Assembly voted 
for this convention hoping that the movement would result in 
failure, as had been the case so often before. 

The voters of Rhode Island showed very little interest in 
this proposed convention, and the suffrage associations at once 
declared the whole scheme an evasion. The leaders proceeded 
to take steps to arouse enthusiasm among the nonfreeholders 
by meetings for debate, by public addresses, by mass conven- 
tions, and by enormous i;)arades, as well as by a constant fusil- 
lade of argumentative letters and editorials, especially in the 
New Age and the Republican Herald. 

The first of the series of parades and conventions occurred 
in Providence on the 17th of April, at which perhaps three 
thousand persons ai)peared in line and wore the suflrage badge. 
This number was probably about equal to one-third of the 
number of legal voters in the State. By this time some of the 
leading Democrats had joined the ranks of the suffragists, and 
had begun to assume control of the movement. The ITtli of 
April was called the " People's Day," and it was prophesied 
that in the future it would rival the Fourth of July. 

A second parade was planned for Election or Inauguration 
Day at Newport on May 5. This convention was naturally 



CONTROVERSY IN RHODE ISLAND IN 1841 MOWRY. 3G5 

much smaller, being held in a less populous community, but 
the interest and enthusiasm seem to have continued unabated. 
At this meeting one of the resolutions passed plainly sug- 
gested holding a State convention, of the n on freeholders as 
well as the legal voters, in order to supersede the charter gov- 
ernment. Another resolution criticised the legislature for not 
apportioning the delegates to the convention according to the 
population, and for not granting every American citizen the 
right of voting for delegates. 

As a result of the agitation, two propositions were brought 
before the General Assembly at its May and June sessions. 
One motion, to the eflect that all taxpaying resident citizens 
be allowed to vote for choice of delegates, was defeated by a 
vote of ten to fifty-one. The Democrats were equally divided, 
while but four Whig votes were cast in its favor. The other 
motion, apportioning the delegates in accordance with the 
population, was carried by a vote of forty- eight to twenty. 

The grant of one of their demands and the refusal of the 
other, the more important one, was not satisfactory to the suf- 
fragists. At a third pojiular convention, held on Independence 
Day, in Providence, resolutions were passed criticising the 
action of the legislature, and affirming the right and advisa- 
bility of holding a popular constitutional convention. July 20, 
a State committee, which had been appointed at the Newport 
meeting, issued an address requesting all the citizens of the 
State to choose delegates to a convention for the purpose of 
forming a State constitution. 

The issue was fairly taken. Two conventions had been sum- 
moned to meet in the autnmn months. One was called by an 
irresponsible committee of eighteen citizens; the other by the 
legislative body of the State. The delegates to one were to be 
chosen by all the male citizens resident in the State for a year 
and over twenty-one years of age; only legal freemen were to be 
electors of delegates to the other. The elections to the second 
were to be guarded in the usual manner; for the first, each 
election meeting could regulate its own action. 

The ground upon which the Suttrage Association claimed the 
right to hold an "extra-legal" convention to form a State con- 
stitution was very simple, and can be briefly shown by the 
following quotations : 

"A majority of the citizens of any State have the incontro- 
vertible right, at any time, to assemble and alter, amend, 
annul or reform their government at pleasure." " We ask for 



366 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

no authority from the legishiture to empower the sovereigu 
people to assemble in convention or to vote for or against the 
doings of that convention/' *' A constitution does not require 
to be framed and voted for under any sanction of the existing 
government." "The sovereign people are acting in their orig- 
inal sovereign capacity." 

Many of the freemen were ready to grant an extension of 
the suffrage who were not willing to accept these constitu- 
tional theories. They considered the '' original sovereigu 
caj)acity" doctrine likely to lead toward an unstable govern- 
ment and perhaps to anarchy. "Majorities," said they, "real 
or pretended, will tind all things lawful and all things expe- 
dient, and should they be fettered by constitutions they have 
oulj'^ to resolve themselves into 'their original sovereign 
capacity,' and they may act their pleasure until another fac- 
tion, stronger than they, shall arise to make them feel in their 
turn the miseries of such licentiousness and anarchy." "The 
vast majority of the people firmly believe that the will of the 
people must be expressed, nat by mass meetings and party 
resolutions, but according to the forms prescribed by the con- 
stitution." 

The so-called "people's convention" met in October, and 
after i^reparing a constitution adjourned for a month. The 
so-called "landholders' convention" met in November, drafted 
a scheme for a constitution, and adjourned until February, in 
order to allow a further discussion on the suffrage question. 
At its second session the people's convention i)erfected its 
constitution and submitted it to the people for ratification. 
Three days were allowed for voting on its adoption and, during 
the next three days, those who "from sickness or other cause 
were unable to attend and vote " were permitted to send iu 
their proxies. It should be remembered that in Rhode Island, 
at all elections, the voter signed his name to the ballot which 
he cast. For the proxies it was only necessary to place also 
upon the back of the ballot the signature of the person who 
carried the prox. Each voter, at tliis people's election, was 
required to affirm ou his ballot that he was an American citi- 
zen of the age of twenty-one years, and that he had a perma- 
nent residence in the State. He must also designate if he was 
a legal voter or not, under the existing laws of the State. 

The vote appears to have been fairly free from fraud or error, 
at least for one cast under such unusual circumstances. A list 



CONTROVERSY IN RHODE ISLAND IN 1841 MOWRY. 367 

of all the voters has been preserved aud has been open to 
iuvestigatiou for fifty years. The opposition to the constitu- 
tion claimed fraud, but no definite proof of illegal ( ?) voting has 
been found sufficient to vitiate the result. In January, 1842, 
the people's convention again met and declared that the con- 
stitution had been legally adopted, inasmuch as nearly four- 
teen thousand votes had been cast for it. The total number of 
males over twenty-one, by the census of 1840, was but a little 
over twenty-six thousand, and, even without deducting any 
from this number in order to omit those not naturalized, the 
insane, convicts, etc., the constitution seems to have received 
the votes of a majority of all the citizens. Nearly five thou- 
sand freemen had voted for the constitution, according to the 
face of the returns, a number more than half as large as had 
ever voted at a State election. 

Propositions were at once made in the General Assembly to 
accept the constitution, to dissolve the constitutional conven- 
tion, and to adjourn sine die. These motions were rejected by 
a vote of fifty-seven to eleven. The legislature also refused to 
investigate the vote on the constitution, claiming that the 
whole operation was illegal and void. 

The landholders' convention met again in February, com- 
pleted its labors, and referred its constitution to the peoj^le for 
adoption. By a vote of the General Assembly, all those citi- 
zens to whom the constitution would grant the suffrage were 
permitted to vote for or against the ratification. Three days in 
March were assigned for the vote. At this point the suffragists 
took the surprising step of voting, with the charter advocates 
aud those opposed to any change, in oi)position to the consti- 
tution. Nearly seventeen thousand votes were cast, aud the 
constitution was defeated by a majority of six hundred and 
seventy-six. 

It is difficult to determine how much influence the fact that 
the constitution was prei)ared by the landholders had upon the 
vote, but that it had much there can be no doubt. Many voted 
against it because they thought it implied a surrender of what 
they considered an invaluable right, namely, the sovereignty 
of the people over the government. The difference between 
the two constitutions was not great. The requirement of a 
two years' residence, instead of one, and a small property 
qualification for naturalized citizens were the two features of 
the landholders' constitution most severely criticised by the 



i- 



368 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

suffragists. The fact that nearly seveuteeu thousand votes 
were cast, about double the largest number ever given before, 
is a proof of a considerable extension of the suffrage. Yet the 
constitution was defeated and the suffragists practically said, 
" Our constitution or none." 

The liubicon was passed. Either the "law and order" 
party or the supporters of the j)eople's constitution must 
quietly surrender or a civil war would ensue. The sequel is 
fairly well known. Two governments were elected, rival 
legislatures took their seats, Governors King and Dorr were 
both inaugurated, and a desperate struggle appeared immi- 
nent. Two months of intense excitement followed. Armed 
bodies attacked arsenals and threw up fortifications, the gar- 
rison at Fort Adams was increased, and martial law was 
proclaimed by the charter authorities. 

Before the end of June the people's government entirely 
collapsed, and Governor Dorr tied from the State for the third 
time. After his voluntary return, he was arrested, tried for 
treason, and condemned to imprisonment for life. He spent 
one year in confinement, and was then pardoned under a gen- 
eral amnesty act. Though the charter government was 
entirely victorious, nevertheless it yielded to the iniblic sen- 
timent, and even before the struggle was over, in June, 1842, 
called a new constitutional convention. This prepared an 
even more liberal constitution, which was ratified almost 
unanimously. Under this constitution of 1843 the State has 
continued without disturbance. In 1888 and 1893, amendments 
were passed, and the universal suffrage demanded in 1841 has 
been practically obtained. 

In conclusion it may be legitimate to make a brief com- 
mentary in connection with the very condensed narrative 
which has been presented. The entire movement of the suf- 
fragists, from the call of the convention up to the election of 
the government under the people's constitution, was entirely 
revolutionary. The fact that the proceedings were peaceful 
up to the 1st of May, 1842, and that no attempt to use force 
had been made by either of the parties, does not diminish its 
illegitimacy. 

The controversy was entirely unique in character, inasmuch 
as no agitation over the adoption of a constitution or of 
amendments to an existing constitution in any of the forty- 
four States has resembled that of Ehode Island in its peculiar 



CONTROVERSY IN RHODE ISLAND IN 1841 MOWRY. 369 

features. The people, wlio had waited so long for an extension 
of the suffrage, had few precedents by which they might be 
guided. Even the constitution of Connecticut, which super- 
seded the charter of King Charles, was framed by a convention 
legally summoned by the legislature. The revolutionary con- 
ventions that framed the constitutions of Pennsylvania and 
Delaware in 1789 and 1793, though called in disregard to the 
previous constitutional limitations, were nevertheless author- 
ized by the legislative bodies of those two States. The only 
precedent that could be suggested besides those of the period 
of the American Revolution itself was that of Michigan, in 
183G. Even here, however, in the change from a Territory to 
a State many questions were presented which rendered it very 
unlike the conditions in Ehode Island. 

If we conceive that the movement in Ehode Island was 
revolutionary, then its failure stamped it as rebellion. If the 
circumstances in the State rendered a change from the aristo- 
cratic to a democratic form of government impossible by legal 
means, then the revolution might have been justified. Later 
developments showed, however, that this was not the case. 
If the revolution had been upheld by the best Judgment of the 
citizens, it might have presented an exceedingly important 
addition to the history of constitutional government. 

Under some circumstances the wild revolutionary scheme of 
the suffragists might have succeeded. If the great majority 
of the people of Rhode Island had accepted the announcement 
of the vote on the people's constitution as an accurate state- 
ment of facts, and if the leaders of the movement had pro- 
ceeded wisely in the establishment of the government which 
the new constitution created, and if the character of all the 
leaders had been such that the people could put real confidence 
in the wisdom of the movement, then the old charter might 
have given way to the more modern instrument. But all these 
possibilities failed to be realized, and the minute that it became 
apparent that the peaceful revolution must be followed by 
a condition of hostilities, into which the Federal Government 
might feel compelled to enter, the movement was doomed. 

The right step for the suffragists to have taken in March, 
1842, was to abandon their constitution and to hasten to ratify 
that which the landholders had prepared. The agitation would 
have then accomplished its legitimate result. In failing to take 
this step and in bringing about the defeat of that constitution 
H. Mis. 91 24 



370 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 

thej'^ made the serious mistake of tlie whole movement. The 
disastrous struggle which followed, together with the adoption 
of the second landholders' constitution, of November, 1842, may, 
perhaps, be said to have definitely furnished the precedent 
that "all lawful changes in government must be made by and 
with the consent of the constituted authorities," or, in the 
words of President Tyler, the existing government must be 
"altered and abolished and another substituted in its place 
only by legal and peaceable proceedings, adopted and pursued 
by the authorities and people of the State." 



i 



/y» 



'^>^f^ 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0014 111 3495 V, 




m^'^^ > 



i S/^^r.X 



> \ . 



:-*i->f^' t 



;^-':^. 







^."^ 



::i^»li#lr^ ': 



W\^ >■ 



